Links of Note Dept:

[Capn Jimbo]

Wonder why this link made the list?


Read this review:

St George Lot 6
An American Single Malt Whisky

Color: Amber -2 (Looks like Ardbeg 10)

ABV: 43%

Aroma Neat:
Gin/Aromatic Botanicals(juniper, peppermint), Floral Vanilla, Pepper Corn (slightly), Rubber/Tires, Toasted Barley,/Hot Porridge, Honeyed Oak, Malted Milk/Cocoa.

Very unique nose. There is certainly new-make evident, but what deliciously eccentric new-make!

Aroma Water:
Bready Vanilla, Honey, Juniper, Root Beer/Sassafras, Ginger Beer, Toasted Oak, Sandalwood, Spearmint, Cocoa, Rubber, Light Tar/Chewing Tobacco (faintly), Screwdriver (vodka and OJ).

Doesn't change too much with water, still very aromatic

Taste Neat:
Spice-Infused Vanilla, Light Honey, Bitter Oak (but not powerful), Peppermint, Sandalwood, Anise, Juniper, Cloves, Orange Potpourri, Pine Tar.

Like the nose, the palate is spicy and aromatic in way that is difficult for me to describe or reconcile with other whiskies I've had. The total effect comes off a bit like aged gin, quite interesting.

Taste Water:
Bitter Apples (slight cider), Peppery Orange Peels, Anise, Vanilla, Cola, A&W Root Beer, Ginger Tea, Lemon (slightly), Aromatic Oak, Juniper, Pine Needles/Tar (slightly).

Bizarre and beguiling, but very enjoyable and fun to try to tease apart.

Finish:
Orange Potpourri, Juniper/Gin, Marzipan, Black Liquorice, Light Barrel Char.

This whisky is an original every turn and this finish is no exception. The bulk of the finish fades somewhat quickly, but an anise and sweet almond character lingers. Never thought I'd have a whisky quite like this.

Conclusion:
Interesting nose that lets you know this whisky marches to its own beat.

Palate that is similar to the nose, but more expressive in its uniqueness.

Finish that is much like the palate (the whole whisky is very coordinated), but with some more barrel influence noticeable.

Rating: 85/100

This is a rather bewildering whisky, since it is so different. That alone makes it worth trying, in my book. Somehow, St George actually is a fairly "easy" whisky to enjoy casually. The the bizarre menagerie of flavors and aromas presenting themselves as an enjoyable and novel curiosity, rather than an impenetrable, unintelligible, or alien experience. Certainly this is whisky to approach with an open mind. I believe that if you can do that, then this malt will reward you.

I'm very interested in seeing how this whisky handles itself after further maturation."

As experienced whisky afficianados know, the addition of a touch of water is done to release aromas. Some competent reviewers believe too that whiskies should be compared and experienced at a standard approaching 40%. Others add a touch simply to release the aromas and tastes within.

Personally, I found great favor with this style of review that reports the spirit both with and without water. Compare to some erstwhile rum reviewers that won't even water an overproof, and somehow believe to taste say Wray & Nephews at 120 proof is a bizarre example of manliness. They never seem to understand that not only does an overproof have far more flavors, but offers an exceptional value in that it can go so much farther with the judicious addition of distilled water.

The Link: to "joshZie's Whisky Reviews". Worth a click...[/b]

[Capn Jimbo]

His name: Josh Zollweg. His game: blogging about whisky.


As in the OP above, joshZie's whisky reviews caught my attention. It turns out he's done about 125 of them, more than a fair number. And finally after 120 of them, it occurred to him to speculate about why in Hades had he left the ranch to do all these. This in a lovely post called "Should We Rate Whisky - Part 1: Why do I rate whisky?". Self-reflection is always a good thing, at least for those few among us who review for the love, and absolutely not for fame, freebies or the almighty shekel.

A couple exerpts...

"Should we rate whisky? That's the big one. I suppose before even hoping to answer that, I should try to understand why I feel compelled to score the drams I taste. Hum, another bewildering question, whisky really is as complex a philosophical subject as it is a beverage... Yes, that's it! I rate whisky because it is complex. I try my best to write tasting notes which are as detailed as I can muster. I feel that I owe this to the whisky, but also to the people who may or may not be influenced to try a particular whisky based on my opinion (giving myself far too much credit, here). Notes are all about describing the experience and are often complex, but somehow they are not enough."

And.

"Good whisky is more than the sum of its parts. It's the harmonies between complementary notes, or the lively antagonism of competing ones. Whisky is about conjured memories and emotions recollected. How can I convey these secondary and tertiary experiences, arising from that I'm sensing physically, to others? I can't in compact form, or every review would be an autobiography as well as a description. So, so complex and now I'm involved on a personal level! But what can be done? Well, the best I can do in the face of daunting complexity is to slap a number on the whole experience"

Have I whetted your interest? If so, do read the entire article (here).